Rights: Individual or Group?

[redmartian89]

Where do rights come from?

Are true rights for individual people or groups of people?

What justifies these rights?

----------------------------------------------------------

I purpose that rights come from nature and are only for individual humans. I say that groups of people (using any division line you want, say race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or gender) have no inherent rights, because these groups have within them still farther dividing lines (such as the abortion or homosexuality deabtes raging in churches or religious divide among homosexuals or even something as insignificant as two kids debating between blue and red as the better color). Whether you're a collectivist or individualist, it is apparent that the individual is the deciding factor.

----------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone here support a group idea of rights and can defend it?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Live for yourself (In this day and age, people who do good work to earn money for themselves are in fact helping our economy)

Die for others (No one got anything done without sacrificing something)

 

[redmartian89]

Die for others (No one got anything done without sacrificing something)

So you'd die for any old random guy on the street, why or why not?

 

[Isambard]

Are you advocating negative or positive rights?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I would die for a random person on the street because of plenty of reasons

1. By sacrificing my life for that person, he may in turn sacrifice for another, then we get the domino affect

2. Death doesn't bother me, God or no God

3. God or no God, I would still follow Jesus to the end to pay my debt

4. I have the personality trait known as "accommodation"

5. The general religious stuff

6. If everyone made sacrifices for everyone else, this world would be a hell of a lot of a better place. It has to start with someone

If Isambard is directing that question at me, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by negative or positive rights

 

[Isambard]

I would die for a random person on the street because of plenty of reasons

1. By sacrificing my life for that person, he may in turn sacrifice for another, then we get the domino affect

2. Death doesn't bother me, God or no God

3. God or no God, I would still follow Jesus to the end to pay my debt

4. I have the personality trait known as "accommodation"

5. The general religious stuff

6. If everyone made sacrifices for everyone else, this world would be a hell of a lot of a better place. It has to start with someone

If Isambard is directing that question at me, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by negative or positive rights

Was meant for the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I'm guessing that means opening post

In either case, thanks for the link

 

[redmartian89]

I see that negative rights are the only true rights.

And I see that everyone performing self-sacrifice for others will end up in a world of extreme proverty and suffering, although as a Christian, that might appeal to you as the meek inherenting the earth.

 

[Isambard]

I see that negative rights are the only true rights.

And I see that everyone performing self-sacrifice for others will end up in a world of extreme proverty and suffering, although as a Christian, that might appeal to you as the meek inherenting the earth.

If you focus exculsively on negative rights, result in some very nasty consequences?

Side Q: Who deemed negative rights important?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I see that negative rights are the only true rights.

And I see that everyone performing self-sacrifice for others will end up in a world of extreme proverty and suffering, although as a Christian, that might appeal to you as the meek inherenting the earth.

I'm sorry redmartian, but I lol'ed when I read this, it just caught me as another poor attempt at a snide comment.

When I say sacrifice, I don't mean we should all go out there and die, I mean that if there is a person down on his faith, and doesn't know what to believe, then I should sacrifice some of my time to help him out. There is a line of course, if some bum asks me for money, but I know he will just use it to buy boose, giving him money isn't a sacrifice, thats just being stupid, and making the situation worse. Don't forgive them if they say they're sorry, forgive them when they show they have learned their lesson.

 

[redmartian89]

Sacrificing would be giving the drunkard money for his booze, helping someone with issues of faith would not.

Sacrificing means your values and cares go away with the action.

As for forgiveness, I agree with you completely. People have to earn forgiveness. It's not a right.

If you focus exculsively on negative rights, result in some very nasty consequences?

Why?

Side Q: Who deemed negative rights important?

The only true freedom we have and need is freedom from force.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

1.the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. 2.the person, animal, or thing so offered. 3.the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. 4.the thing so surrendered or devoted.

If we look at number three, we can consider that I value my time very highly, I don't get paid to help others, and get every bit of time that I can, yet I consider the troubles of others around me a far more important cause. Saying that giving my time to another is not a sacrifice, yet practically giving booze to a bum is, is like saying that giving my life for someone is not a sacrifice.

 

[redmartian89]

You need to act and live for yourself, not for others.

Sacrifice and altruism have always poured out suffering and death.

The moment you sacrifice you right to live, you become a slave.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I am a slave to my dream, and free to act

 

[Isambard]

Sacrificing would be giving the drunkard money for his booze, helping someone with issues of faith would not.

Sacrificing means your values and cares go away with the action.

As for forgiveness, I agree with you completely. People have to earn forgiveness. It's not a right.



Why?



The only true freedom we have and need is freedom from force.

Simple, how can you possibly hope to have negative rights in a society without any positive rights?

 

[us38]

Society gives rights to the people.

People give society the power to give rights.

 

[Isambard]

Society gives rights to the people.

People give society the power to give rights.

Society wont last long w/o positive rights. How do you propose to solve this problem? (My critisim is expanded upon in the article I linked.)

 

[us38]

Society wont last long w/o positive rights. How do you propose to solve this problem? (My critisim is expanded upon in the article I linked.)

People see the benefits of positive rights and force society to take them up.

 

[redmartian89]

Rights come from nature.

Civilized men need rights, because the one survival instinct we have is our mind and capacity to reason.

The one positive right we can have is the ability to deal with each other as we choose without worrying about bondage to state or other men.

The right to pursue our own happiness.

That is, of course, coming from a self-interest standpoint.

Only an altruist would demand sacrifice for someone's 'positive rights'. Positive rights mean that I can get a service, like education or health care, without the seller's consent.

How can a society not survive without positive rights?

 

[Isambard]

Rights come from nature.

Civilized men need rights, because the one survival instinct we have is our mind and capacity to reason.

The one positive right we can have is the ability to deal with each other as we choose without worrying about bondage to state or other men.

The right to pursue our own happiness.

That is, of course, coming from a self-interest standpoint.

Only an altruist would demand sacrifice for someone's 'positive rights'. Positive rights mean that I can get a service, like education or health care, without the seller's consent.

How can a society not survive without positive rights?

How would you protect negative rights without some sort of force? How would you fund said force? How would you account for the free-rider problem?

All of these are answered thru (ironically) violating a negative right, property in the form of taxes.

Without positive rights, your negative rights wouldnt last long in the face of an external enemy.

So any arguement for instrinsic or 'natural rights' is meaningless as nature cares for neither and it a human construct.